Out from the shadows: the case for external oversight of UK Special Forces

While the UK government maintains a strict ‘no comment’ policy about the country’s special forces, allied countries, including the US, allow for parliamentary oversight of their covert military operations. Liam Walpole argues that the UK’s approach lacks democratic accountability and prevents proper evaluation of the military effectiveness of special forces. Options for reform include expanding the Intelligence and Security Committee’s remit to cover special forces.

Lessons from America

In October 2017, four US Special Operations Forces (SOF) operatives were killed following a botched raid in Niger, West Africa. The fallout from that event left many US legislators confused as to why US special forces were in West Africa at all; what were their aims and what did they hope to achieve? Aside from claims made by Senator Lindsay Graham that he was unaware of a US military presence in West Africa – even though details on US SOF deployments are provided to Congress as part of a monthly update from the Pentagon – the Trump administration confirmed it would launch an inquiry to establish the facts.

The findings of that investigation were published two weeks ago. And although much of the 6,000-page report remains classified, an eight-page, declassified summary was also published. This detailed the mistakes that led to the ill-fated raid that left dozens of Nigeriens dead, and recommended possible safeguards to prevent the same mistakes being repeated.

However, there are clear challenges – explored in finer detail in our report – that would have to be overcome before the ISC could take responsibility for external oversight of UKSF. For one, the ISC’s mandate has focused on scrutinising the British intelligence agencies so expanding its remit to include special forces may be perceived as encroaching on the work carried out by the HCDC.

At an event organised by RWP last month, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former chair of the ISC (2010–14), suggested the HCDC, already responsible for scrutinising the Ministry of Defence, could scrutinise the activities of UKSF in place of the ISC. This could be done either by: 1) establishing a sub-committee represented by the most senior members of the committee, providing them with the necessary clearances; or 2) by giving all elected members of the committee security clearance – representing a new historical precedent – to hold meetings in closed and open settings. This would bring the UK more in line with our European allies, but also the US Congress where all legislators (by default) are provided with security clearance.

However, what would happen if UK parliamentarians did not pass the appropriate vetting procedures? It was mooted that vetting the first set of candidates proposed for membership of the ISC by the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn resulted in delays to reconstituting the committee after the 2017 general election. The processes for providing security clearance would therefore have to be handled with the necessary diligence and sensitivity.

The additional complexities of reforming the HCDC so that it could take on the role of scrutinising special forces led us to recommend this only as a longer-term option, in recognition of the fact that it would require substantial structural, political, financial and cultural changes to the select committee system.

Strategic advantages of oversight

There would be immense benefits for the UK and its special forces if parliamentary accountability was introduced. This is demonstrated by the US Armed Services Committees, where, for example, resourcing, retention of soldiers and budgeting are open to scrutiny, establishing a strategic dialogue between Capitol Hill, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Special Operations Command (SOCOM). This relationship is not replicated between the UK Director of Special Forces (DSF), the MOD, the prime minister and parliament. By holding closed and open hearings – most recently a closed hearing on the Niger report – the US model can deliver strategic openness with tactical security, providing appropriate checks and balances on political decision-making and US SOF’s role in wider military strategy.

Many of the UK’s allies have also recognised the benefits of permitting greater flexibility over the flow of information about their special forces. Even in France, which has historically adopted a similarly opaque approach towards its own special forces, reforms in 2008 enabled French parliamentarians to question their role in overseas military operations. These two examples – Norway and Denmark are others – highlight how Britain appears to be alone among its allies in not permitting any discussion on the staffing, funding and the strategy surrounding the use of its special forces. This suggests that a balance can be struck between the need for secrecy to provide security and the need to open up government decision-making to scrutiny and debate – which is pivotal for a healthy democracy.

Undoubtedly many aspects of special forces’ activity cannot be made public but as it stands it is unclear if the necessary mechanisms exist in the UK to learn lessons if (or when) special forces operations go wrong. By downplaying the benefits of opening UKSF to external scrutiny, the UK government places itself at a strategic disadvantage that devalues lessons learned exercises that could otherwise be incorporated into improving future military effectiveness.

This post represents the views of the author, and not those of Democratic Audit.

About the author

Liam Walpole has been Senior Advocacy Officer at Remote Warfare Programme since July 2017. Previously, Liam worked for two Conservative Members of Parliament at the House of Commons, supporting them in carrying out their duties in Parliament and their respective constituencies. Liam studied Politics and History at Brunel University and wrote his undergraduate thesis on President Barack Obama’s foreign policy in Afghanistan and the effectiveness of the then-President’s troop surge. Liam is currently studying a part-time Masters course in Diplomacy & Foreign Policy at City, University of London.

Latest

As special forces are increasingly used in actions overseas, and face growing questions about accountability and resources, it is time for the UK government to abandon its outdated attitude and allow for the democratic oversight of special forces in Parliament.

Oxford Research Group’s Remote Warfare Programme submitted evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s (PACAC) inquiry recently, looking at the British Parliament’s role in authorising the use of military force.

ORG is looking for an expert on climate change and security issues to lead on implementation of a new project on integrating climate change analysis into UK national security planning processes. Expressions of interest are sought by 14 March

Related

As special forces are increasingly used in actions overseas, and face growing questions about accountability and resources, it is time for the UK government to abandon its outdated attitude and allow for the democratic oversight of special forces in Parliament.

Oxford Research Group’s Remote Warfare Programme submitted evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s (PACAC) inquiry recently, looking at the British Parliament’s role in authorising the use of military force.

In the aftermath of President Trump’s surprise announcement that US forces will withdraw from Syria, MPs expressed their concerns at abandoning the fight against IS pre-emptively and leaving Kurdish partners behind without adequate support.

Remote Warfare Programme Director, Emily Knowles, spoke at the Fabian’s New Year Conference on Saturday 19 January as part of a panel event entitled: Positive Vision: Deepening defence and security cooperation.

In the 12 days of December that parliament sat, the long-awaited release of the Modernising Defence Programme could and should have been the big news. Instead it was released two days before the Christmas recess began and it was deemed underwhelming by MPs and analysts alike.

Oxford Research Group (ORG) is an independent organisation that has been influential for over 35 years in pioneering new, more strategic approaches to security and peacebuilding. Based in London since 2006, ORG continues to pursue cutting edge research and advocacy in the United Kingdom and abroad while managing innovative peacebuilding projects in several Middle Eastern countries.

The Higaonon, an indigenous tribe in Northern Mindanao in the southern Philippines, have preserved an ancient system of conflict resolution which has enabled them to be a truly peaceful community. However, there is a need to ensure that this knowledge is not lost in the future.

Several diplomatic efforts have been made both domestically and internationally to enhance peaceful unity since the start of the Cyprus Problem. Despite the shortcomings of past efforts, it is still desirable not only to resolve the issue, but also to do so in a timely manner.

Over the past two decades, the United Nations Security Council has responded more strongly to some humanitarian crises than to others. This variation in Security Council action raises the important question of what factors motivate United Nations intervention.